[S]kill in language does provide a better hope of survival; it even wins wars, for struggle on the field of battle is a dramatic version of strife in the minds of men. Long before the first trigger was pulled, Hitler fired off a shattering salvo of words. He pounded his fist and shouted: “Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer!” Don’t make the mistake of thinking that his listeners muttered back an uncertain “Ach so, gewiss, gewiss.” They shouted back, “Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer!”

The cannonade roared across the Channel and shook the cliffs of England. Fortunately for us all, England, although unarmed, was not unready. The answering barrage rings in our ears still: “Blood, toil, tears, and sweat.” Battle was joined. Hitler’s words sent the Wehrmacht crashing to the outskirts of Dunkirk, but Churchill’s words sent schoolboys and accountants and retired fishmongers down to the sea in their little boats and over the water to the beaches of Dunkirk.

While that may be an incomplete account of the war, it is not an inaccurate one. It was a war of words and speaking just as much as a war of iron and blood. If the fighting was sometimes stupid and vicious, it was because certain other words were in the minds of men. Whatever else Churchill may have been doing in those days, he was always providing the English with words. With words he formed their thoughts and emotion. “We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills,” said Churchill. Millions answered, apparently, “By God, so we shall.”

That’s an excerpt from Less Than Words Can Say, by the late Richard Mitchell, the Underground Grammarian, a book I have recommended to everyone I know who has an interest in language. I am passionate about the book; I don’t know that I’ve ever run into anyone else who is, but I keep trying. There are three more books in his explorations of language. I quote it to emphasize that the way something is said — makes a difference.

We can talk and talk, but suddenly someone puts a thought into words that resonate with you and your understanding changes permanently. The words of Scott Johnson’s “worldly-wise man” in my earlier post really resonated with me, and explained the extent to which members of the left live in a bubble of their own construct, that controls their thought and their actions.

Words from those of us on the right do not penetrate, except to be thought stupid or irrational. Our complaints do not register at all. Obama lives behind an impenetrable wall — from behind which he can shoot moral arrows to demonstrate his superiority and destroy any emerging criticism.

The Left understands the importance of language. That’s why they keep changing names, like changing “liberal” (unpopular) to “progressive,” and devising slogans and talking-points that become required for liberal speech.

“Global warming” (now “climate change”) is an excellent example. There is unassailable proof from observation in the real world that there is a seventeen year old pause in warming due to the sun going quiet. No sunspots. The computer models used by the IPCC put in what is known about climate (not very much) add some intelligent guesses, and some pure fantasy, assume that to be an accurate picture of the climate — that can predict the future up to 50 and 100 years in the future, and accept the whole damn thing as gospel truth. Anyone who disagrees is to be fired, prevented from publishing, run out of the scientific community, and thoroughly disgraced — because they rely on real observation of the real world — and have the nerve to question the given word of the left. That’s the Leftist bubble.

Government grants, regulations, fines, career success, and everything from the disappearance of cheap, efficient incandescent lightbulbs, to recycling, reliance on expensive, inefficient solar and wind energy, that can never provide a significant amount of energy, electric cars, and the current attempt to make coal-fired power plants all shut down on January 1,which will overload the power grid and freeze people to death in what is predicted to be a colder, harsher winter than last year.

This president is operating from within the leftist bubble, and he is not interested in dissent or disagreement which are to him simply stupid enemy attacks. He has no need to listen — because he is right. “Hope and Change” doesn’t cut it anymore.

Like this:

Related

And as you point out, these changes are deliberate. They are ongoing attempts to take what is uncomfortable for many and make it palatable.

The current vogue of changing words and phrases that Dems don’t like has a lot, I think, to do with simple fact that they never truly understood what the words and phrases meant in the first place. Either that, or they have so abused the term that it no longer has any of its original meaning or intent left. Take the current cry of “Racism!”. It used to have a specific meaning, and because of that specific meaning, it had weight and importance. Nowadays, the word is thrown around casually, used to describe anything from opposition to the policies of Obama to the name of a football team. Demanding a photo ID to vote is “racist” somehow, and policemen using legitimate methods of profiling suspects is considered “racist”. It no longer has the meaning it once did, and so no longer has the importance. It has become simply a swear word for the left.

Good one. I’d never seen that bit from George Carlin. The VA health care system should be using it. By extension, it explains a lot about the federal bureaucracy.

Unfortunately, Republicans aren’t very good at language. They are busy trying to explain why raising the minimum wage is counterproductive and why lowering the corporate tax or eliminating it would be the preferred position which they don’t do very effectively anyway. Democrats will say “living wage,” and “nobody who works full-time should live in poverty” — ignoring the fact that someone working full-time and earns the minimum wage is officially above the poverty level. Republican usually have someone in every campaign who loses because he/she managed to choose unfortunate words to say something — that expressed more carefully would not have been a big deal.